Shillong, April 3 (FN Bureau) The Meghalaya High Court on Monday observed that policy matters were best left to the legislature and the executive while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation without going into the merits of the matter pertaining to the roster system for reserved seats in the state. While pronouncing the order for dismissing the litigation filed by one Greneth M Sangma, a division bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, observed that it did not appear that any decision has yet been taken as to a cut-off date or the like or how far back the roster system would be made applicable.
“These are policy matters that are best left to the legislature and the executive and upon a firm stand being taken, it will be open to any citizen affected thereby to question the propriety thereof in accordance with law,” the High Court said. “As of now, and without a decision in such regard having been taken by the Assembly which is actively discussing the matter, the present petition should not be entertained,” it added. In its opening remarks in the order, the High Court said, “This petition, apparently filed in the public interest, appears to be an attempt to muddy the already disturbed waters.” At the same time it noted that it was discovered in 2022, “quite accidentally”, in course of a service matter before a Division Bench of the court, that though the reservation policy had been in place in this State since its inception in January 1972, there was no roster that had been prepared.
Accordingly, the High Court took suo motu cognisance of such irregularity and required all appointments to be stayed till a roster was prepared. Certain ancillary directions were also issued. “A roster was prepared. The Court noticed that a roster had been prepared and the matter was given a quietus without going into the veracity of the roster that was prepared and upon prima facie satisfaction that the roster adhered to the extent of reservation of about 85 per cent that is in vogue in the State,” the court added. Moreover, the court said it may be called upon to look into the matter at a more appropriate stage.